It's still the 99% pretty much dependent for their livelihood on the 1%. So, call it however you like but I think we're still being feudal in many ways. Discuss. I'll pop in later, got to finish something.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Long-term, I would suggest that the Monarchy is the more stable political platform. I really like the King of Holland! And the Monarchy is flexible! Even the People are flexible under the Monarchy! Check it out:

1

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's still the 99% pretty much dependent for their livelihood on the 1%. So, call it however you like but I think we're still being feudal in many ways. Discuss. I'll pop in later, got to finish something.

There is one main difference.

Under feudalism, the lord had an obligation to protect the vassals and the inhabitants of his fief from external threats.

Today the 1% really doesn't care about the 99%. There is no sense of having obligations.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's still the 99% pretty much dependent for their livelihood on the 1%. So, call it however you like but I think we're still being feudal in many ways. Discuss. I'll pop in later, got to finish something.

Interesting view. Not sure it is the definition of feudalism, though. To me the definition of feudalism is giving up freedom in exchange for security, not food.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't think the serfs had a hand in deciding. And true surf societies require high levels of low end labor, typically agricultural. Today so much wealth is asset based, not on being productive by historical definitions.

A poor American today typically has a better life than a semi-rich person 150 years ago. And a better life than a heck of a lot of the folks in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, half of China and Indonesia, etc..

I've done a bit better than my father, but I expect my son to do worse. But I don't fear for my son's basic ability to get by.

I suppose debt is in many ways the modern owner of many.

I don't begrudge a Saros or Brazos their billions. I do fear for the long term consequences of entitlement and inherited wealth and power. History suggests if the 1% gets too out of hand, it's pitchforks, bonfires, and guillotines. But technology and firepower allows the wealth and power discrepancy ratios to be for more than in historical terms. And we live in a time that thinks inheritance taxes are evil, ignoring what history teaches us. Yes, enough for you kids to live an OK live, but not oligarchs and royalty.

So I'll continue to argue for capitalism, but it needs regulation because when one side has too much power, overwhelming history suggests it destroys the competition that makes it work well, and reward desired behavior.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't think the serfs had a hand in deciding. And true surf societies require high levels of low end labor, typically agricultural. Today so much wealth is asset based, not on being productive by historical definitions.

A poor American today typically has a better life than a semi-rich person 150 years ago. And a better life than a heck of a lot of the folks in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, half of China and Indonesia, etc..

I've done a bit better than my father, but I expect my son to do worse. But I don't fear for my son's basic ability to get by.

I suppose debt is in many ways the modern owner of many.

I don't begrudge a Saros or Brazos their billions. I do fear for the long term consequences of entitlement and inherited wealth and power. History suggests if the 1% gets too out of hand, it's pitchforks, bonfires, and guillotines. But technology and firepower allows the wealth and power discrepancy ratios to be for more than in historical terms. And we live in a time that thinks inheritance taxes are evil, ignoring what history teaches us. Yes, enough for you kids to live an OK live, but not oligarchs and royalty.

So I'll continue to argue for capitalism, but it needs regulation because when one side has too much power, overwhelming history suggests it destroys the competition that makes it work well, and reward desired behavior.

I agree, in the debt feudal system, the central bankers, global elite, elected officials, government including government bureaucrats are our overlords with ever increasing power.

My definition is that people were given protection and in exchange worked the land of the lord. However, land wasn't in short supply at the time, so in my view the main driver was the security. Re the land - the lord basically got a crop-share. I suppose that could be compared to modern day finance cost.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You mean you believe age is the sole factor determining annual income? Oh, how I wish that were the case. Sadly, it isn't. And no, initiative and ambition are not enough, either.

It's not the sole factor but it's a very important one. Initiative and ambition are not sole factors either, sometimes you're just lucky, and sometimes you're not, it's a fact. But people get desperate if they think they can't do anything about their situation and that they are only victims of the circumstances and not actors of their own lives.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Weeeell, we're dipping our toes in another topic here with the victim thinking. I completely agree this sort of thinking is harmful. Yet it is apparently also quite convenient, as we can see. It will come back to bite its proponents and this will be sad. Anyway enough about that.

23 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think we need to get started on the false consiousness. I wonder what is our opium these days?

As opposed to religion? Why, PC, of course.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't really think that religion is that important anymore with the ME being a possible exception (and even there I have my doubts). What I had in mind was money and social media... I am a big fan of Slavoj Zizek (my philosophy professor introduced me to his writings back in the day).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think this as good a thread as any to discuss the big isms. Capitalism, liberalism, social-liberalism and the big one : what is democrazy, really? In order to keep it civil Isuggest we try to discuss these in a spirit the great thinkers would have liked.

I will start off with Capitalism. Whilst I believe in Capitalism and comparative advantages I also believe that un-regulated capitalism leads to monopolies and geo-political problems (I think here we need to consider that capitalism was born into a different contect). A balance has to be found.

I am sincerely hoping that someone other than me will take liberalism and social liberalism.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think this as good a thread as any to discuss the big isms. Capitalism, liberalism, social-liberalism and the big one : what is democrazy, really? In order to keep it civil Isuggest we try to discuss these in a spirit the great thinkers would have liked.

Was this on purpose or is it the best typo ever?

I believe in moderation when it comes to political systems. Actually, no, I don't believe. I know moderation is crucial.

Share on other sites

I think this as good a thread as any to discuss the big isms. Capitalism, liberalism, social-liberalism and the big one : what is democrazy, really? In order to keep it civil Isuggest we try to discuss these in a spirit the great thinkers would have liked.

Was this on purpose or is it the best typo ever?

Possibly the best description ever, but still better than the alternates.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think this as good a thread as any to discuss the big isms. Capitalism, liberalism, social-liberalism and the big one : what is democrazy, really? In order to keep it civil Isuggest we try to discuss these in a spirit the great thinkers would have liked.

I will start off with Capitalism. Whilst I believe in Capitalism and comparative advantages I also believe that un-regulated capitalism leads to monopolies and geo-political problems (I think here we need to consider that capitalism was born into a different contect). A balance has to be found.

I am sincerely hoping that someone other than me will take liberalism and social liberalism.

On 12/7/2018 at 8:27 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

Was this on purpose or is it the best typo ever?

I believe in moderation when it comes to political systems. Actually, no, I don't believe. I know moderation is crucial.

On 12/7/2018 at 10:52 PM, Dan Warnick said:

Possibly the best description ever, but still better than the alternates.

Dear Commies (friends in the community).......... uuhhh........ pardon me..... I have attached an image tendative to illustrate the diverging points quoted above............ eerrr................ we might be in a dynamic constant. The basic remain the same regardless how much time has past but terms could be different? or no?